Hatebreed’s lawsuit against Chris Beattie has a new development

In response to founding bassist Chris Beattie’s complaint, Hatebreed has stated that Beattie has no valid reason to sue the seasoned Connecticut hardcore/metal band for firing him last year, according to Billboard. Beattie claimed that he was the “driving force behind [the band’s] sound and identity until his sudden and baseless expulsion” from the band last November in his initial case, which was submitted to Connecticut Superior Court in New Haven this past July. Additionally, he charged that in the months preceding Chris’s “abrupt termination,” Hatebreed frontman Jamey Jasta had exhibited “increasingly erratic” behavior, “culminating in a unilateral decision to cut Beattie off from his career, fans, touring, and substantial expected revenue.”

The parties referred to the dispute as a “garden variety band break-up case” and described Beattie as “a disgruntled former band member” who “erroneously asserts a right to remain a permanent member” of Hatebreed “in perpetuity despite the fact that the underlying relationship between the parties was terminable at-will.” On September 25, Hatebreed and Jasta filed a motion to strike some of Beattie’s claims. According to the motion, which has been obtained by blabbermouth.net, Beattie, Jasta and Hatebreed drummer Matthew Byrne “entered into a Band merchandise agreement on or about September 25, 2015, which provided the three would each be entitled to 25% of the sales revenue from Band merchandise and two other Band members would each receive 12.5% of the remaining sales revenue.”

Beattie “was terminated from his role in the Band on November 15, 2024,” according to the motion, and he wholly fails to allege that any agreement was concluded with Hatebreed, or Hatebreed’s members, or that he has an ownership interest in the Band’s name. Nor does heallege that he has not received record or publishing royalties in connection with recording projects that he worked on. He claims [Jasta] and him maintained an ‘implied agreement’ from the Band’s inception that he would be an ‘equal co-owner’ and share in the Band’s profits, royalties and rights. His complaint is devoid of any allegation Hatebreed maintained an agreement with him concerning his status with the Band or his entitlement to Band revenues. Without a written agreement with a term, his] relationship with the Band was terminable at-will.”

Beattie claimed that Jasta fired him due to “an alleged incident that occurred on or around November 9, 2024 just prior to a Hatebreed concert at the Toyota Oakdale Theater in Wallingford, Connecticut.” Hatebreed’s motion also addressed Beattie’s other claims.

A Live Nation security guard at the venue falsely reported that Beattie had harassed her upon entering the theater prior to his performance. These allegations were patently untrue. Beattie never harassed any Live Nation employee and more likely, she mistook him for someone else.

[Beattie] does not allege [Hatebreed and Jasta] committed any wrongful conduct during the process of terminating [Beattie’s] participation in the Band. [Beattie] merely alleges [Hatebreed and Jasta] ‘abruptly terminated’ [Beattie] from his role in the Band ‘based on unsupported and false allegations’ connected to the Live Nation incident which resulted in his ’emotional distress.’ Even if the Live Nation incident was ‘cited’ as a ‘false narrative’ for his termination, [Beattie’s] allegations do not amount to a cognizable claim because the incident merely preceded his termination — it was not connected with the termination process itself. [Beattie] claims he provided ‘decades-long contributions’ to the Band, and his share of the Band’s revenue is now being inequitably withheld by [Hatebreed and Jasta] following his termination. [Beattie’s] unjust enrichment claim is insufficiently pled because [Beattie] fails to allege he is entitled to Band revenue in perpetuity after termination based simply on his prior contributions to the Band.

Motion by Hatebreed’s attorney

He contributed significant labor, musical talent, recording and management duties, promotion, and financial resources, without which Hatebreed would not and could not have achieved its current level of recognition and profitability. The band functioned pursuant to a longstanding, implied agreement and understanding that Shanahan and Beattie were equal co-owners in the band and entitled to their designated share of profits, royalties, and intellectual property rights. He and other band members had no insight into how the money was managed, and most often received payment via wire transfers. Those transfers often came with no explanation or breakdown of the amount being transferred. Hatebreed continued to operate in accordance with the longstanding implied agreement and understanding the primary members, including Shanahan, Beattie, and Byrne, were co-equal owners in the band. In addition, the three, along with band manager Steve Ross, played a critical role in all major decision-making on behalf of the band. For example, each of Shanahan, Beattie, Byrne and Ross were responsible for and often discussed managerial decisions such as how much other band members were paid for certain shows, booking and scheduling, distribution, and the band’s public image and branding, among other things. Despite this understanding and practice that the three primary band members be involved in such decision-making and entitled to equal shares in profits, at some point Shanahan became more secretive with respect to decision-making and the band’s finances. Chris Beattie